Re: Beginning of the Millenium <WOB>

["Jerry A. Cohen" <cohen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The beginning of the mellinium is largely based on an arbitrary 
decision revolving around what to call the first year C.E.  Many, 
including the incredibly smart Marilyn Vos Savant (appologies for 
spelling) agree with Alan Williams' interpretation.  However, this is 
quite inconvenient and not very practical, considering how we refer 
to the age of everything else.  When we are born, we are in our first 
year (from age 0 to age 12 mos), then we go into our second year, 
during which time we are 1 year old.  Similarly, the year 1 for 
simply practical reasons should begin after the first 12 mos C.E.  
We are no more compelled to call the year between 0 and 1 C.E. the 
year one, than we are to call a person 1 year old during the first 
year after birth, although some cultures like this.   This way we are 
free to regard the year 2000, as with the year of our own age, as 
having been completed and not begun, when it arrives.  This would 
mean that we began the 2000th year on Jan 1, 1999.  Similarly 
we will begin the 2001 year on Jan 1, 2000. 

If, as Alan points out, the year 1 occurs, one year after the 
calendar date of Jesus death,  the year 2000 occurs 2000 years A.D.; 
count them, 2000 entire years.   The discussions of Christmas relate 
to the birth of Jesus and open another incredibly knotty issue, 
totally unrelated to this.  So if a man or woman could live 2000 
years, and was born the day Jesus died, and doesn't have to wait 
2001 years to start his/her 3rd millenium, why should we? Why wait 
until the beginning of the 2002nd year to start the new millenium?  
Its no fun, its confusing to those of us that can't grasp the notion 
of two concepts of elapsed time, and it sure screws up the birthday 
plans of anyone getting ready turn 2000 years old (please feel free 
to refer to Mel Brooks and Carl Riner for details.

Jerry Cohen
BMWCCA 157750 

------------------------------